Lucienne Robillard

[Immigration, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the impact of the decision that we received yesterday. It only says that individual should have a hearing in front of the refugee board.

We have other tools in the legislation to prevent individuals from going to the refugee board. This was in Bill C-44 voted on in the Chamber, but the Reform Party voted against it.

[Immigration, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Reform Party is looking for questions this morning. They do not know what to ask.

This is the fourth question on the same subject. We answered very clearly on that. We said that we have other tools in the legislation to deal with that case.

Yesterday we had a decision by the supreme court concerning an interpretation of the refugee convention of the United Nations. This is not a simple matter. It is an important one. We will look at it and will act on it if we have to do so. In the meantime we can act on that individual.

[Immigration, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is always a problem with the Reform Party. As an immigration matter there are very complex issues here. We have to think twice before making decisions when it affects the lives of individuals. It is clear that we will look at it very closely. We have other tools in the legislation for acting in that case.

[Immigration, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have already replied to that question, but I will do so again.

The Supreme Court handed down its ruling yesterday, and we are looking at the impact.

That having been said, I cannot discuss the situation of the individual concerned in detail, but there are other avenues open to us under the legislation for intervening and ensuring that this kind of individual is never allowed to stay in Canada.

[Labour, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I stand up for Canadian workers. I also stand up to respect the legislation in this country.

Perhaps the member does not know but the practice was quite different in Newfoundland. That is why we had that problem. A private company challenged the department to go to court because the practices were different in two provinces.

It is the role of the federal government to have a national policy. That is why we will revise it.

[Labour, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have nothing against Canadian workers. On the contrary, our government is working to find them jobs.

That said, we have changed nothing in the immigration legislation or regulations. A question has arisen just recently in Nova Scotia about the interpretation of the policy or practice in use there. We are now looking at the overall picture.

We are going to do everything necessary to see that Canadians have work.

[Immigration, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not recommending that we not follow the rule of law in this country. We will respect the rule of law in the legislation that we have.

We have other tools in the Immigration Act right now. I am thinking about the certificate for danger of the public. When we tabled that legislation some years ago the Reform Party voted against that. We will take our responsibility here.

[Immigration, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, members must understand that we are talking about a Supreme Court ruling. I hope that the member opposite is not asking me to flout the law of Canada.

That said, the ruling is a very recent one. We are analyzing its impact, but there are other avenues available to us in the Immigration Act that would also allow us to take action, and that is what we are examining.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 27th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the third time and passed.

[Immigration, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the information given by the member is completely false. This is a way for him and his party to create rifts all the time. When we want to help genuine refugees, we will do so but not against the protection of Canadians.